Geoengineering as Planetary Emergency Response?

Re lance

Gee, Pat Michaels, global climate change denialist extraordinaire. Pat Michaels is about as authoritative on the subject of global climate change as Peter Duesberg is on the subject of the relationship of HIV and AIDS. On the other hand, that's probably being too hard on Prof. Duesberg; Duane Gish on the subject of evolution might be a more appropriate comparison.

Doesn't anyone believe in the law of unintended consequences anymore?

Engineers succeed by paying attention to what can go wrong, i.e., by treating Murphy's Law as a good thing. In this case, engineers need to recognize that what has gone wrong so far is our failure to educate the public and our political leaders about the problem, and consequently we have insufficient action to address it.

In other words, the potential climate engineers ought to be speaking truth to power and to the public rather than cooking up plans where Murphy's Law will probably bite them (and the rest of us) with potential consequences even more disastrous than the ones they are trying to avoid.

The best analogy I can think of is the loss of Space Shuttle Challenger, where the engineers who anticipated the failure were (a) ignored and then (b) pressured into keeping their concerns to themselves. Had they changed the launch plans, the catastrophic failure would have been avoided.

We need to focus on changing the actions that are leading us toward problems, not making plans about what to do if we don't act.

In short, our policy-making needs engineering more than the climate itself.

I wrote about that in a chapter of my best known book for young readers, Catastrophe! Great Engineering Failure--and Success. Click my name for details.

Chris,

I think your math is right, and that the already-accelerating interest in climate engineering will just continue to rev up with each bit of bad news. Right now, however, the debates surrounding geoengineering focus on either technical details or eco-ethical arguments. There's an even bigger issue with geoengineering, however, that needs to be addressed.

The international politics of re-terraforming the Earth have the potential to be the biggest stumbling block to careful and judicious geoengineering projects. I've been following the idea for nearly four years, since I was at Worldchanging.com (I co-founded the site), and the political aspects are far and away the most worrisome to me.

Here are two essays of mine that go into the political issues:

The Politics of Geoengineering

Terraforming War

In short: geoengineering projects are highly likely to be developed as a way of responding to climate catastrophe, but are just as likely to become the focus of -- and mechanisms for -- international conflict.

-Jamais Cascio

Well said, Fred.

But here, I'll contribute my own equation:

Geoengineering to mitigate climate change = science run amok

In my opinion, it is the silliest idea in the history of the galaxy. Ishmael (the gorilla, that is) would be turning over in his grave. Each time this idea is mentioned my doomerosity index, already elevated, kicks up a couple of notches.

It is our behavior, our world-view, and the size of our population that merit scrutiny. And if that scrutiny yields inadequate action, my suggestion would be to make the best of a warmer earth.

According to an article in todays' Washington Post, the ice sheets in Antarctica may be melting. If true, this would demolish one of the arguments used by climate change deniers who insist that global warming isn't happening because the Antarctic ice sheets previously did not appear to be melting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR20080…

Crying wolf has all sorts of bad consequences.

I wouldn't worry too much about geo-engineering though, since there is no big bad climate wolf at the door.

If I were part of the eco-left I would be much more wary of the coming backlash when the foretold catastrophes (2.5 to 5+ C temp increases, ice sheet collapse, five meter sea level rise, mega-cyclones, super-droughts, killer heat waves, etc.) fail to materialize.

Of course cleverly placing these disasters over the horizon and over-hyping anything that does happen as an ominous consequence of "climate change" has worked so far but these Chicken Littles will come home to roost someday.

You can fool some of the people some of the time...

If *I* were part of the eco-left I would remove the earplugs and blinders and pay attention to what scientists have to say about the coming eco-disasters.

I hope we're careful about geoengineering, but I also hope we don't make a fetish of the preindustrial environment. There's nothing holy or magical about Mother Nature after all, and it would be a pity if we never learned to micromanage the various planetary systems.

Fred & Eric:

I think you are both way off base here.
Fred says "We need to focus on changing the actions that are leading us toward problems, not making plans about what to do if we don't act."

And suppose that scientists act by pressuring congress to do X and (a) congress refuses to do X, or (b) congress does X fully or partly and it is not successful, or not working quick enough to mitigate catastrophic problems. Then what? Scientists acted, so you are happy?

No, some portion of scientists and engineers definitely need to think about what if our actions don't work. Coming up with backup plans, that is. Contingency plans are good, if we keep in mind that they are contingency plans.

And moreover, a fair number of people believe that we are already past, way way past, the point of no return. You say we have to "changing the actions that are leading us toward problems". I've seen claims that even if we went carbon-neutral today, it likely wouldn't avoid problems. That is, our actions over the past 50 to 100 years are a sufficiently bad problem. Our actions today are just making it worse. And so we might need both geoengineering and "changing [our current] actions" to keep the planet habitable for us.

Just a quick budget update so you can judge how rapidly the geoengineering technologies are being developed and when we can expect the first geoengineering war to start:

Government Funding for Geoengineering Research (2007)

DOE $0
NASA $0
EPA $0
DOD $0
Other $0

These don't count the few hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to generate the research papers that have appeared or hold the symposia that have occurred over the last few years or the handful of meetings (Moffett Field, Harvard, Sen. Hearing on Chesapeake Bay) at which some of these ideas were discussed or the time and effort spent by various speakers and the media discussing geoengineering.

Planktos (now a financial shipwreck it appears, off the coast of Spain) and Climos, acting largely on paper, but with a Bush-like certitude that no one can explain, attract lots of attention for their ocean iron fertilization ideas, but have gained little traction.

That the subject of geoengineering the climate is generating more interest is a sign that government involvement may be on the horizon. It's just not here yet and won't be until well after January 20, 2009 and even that is highly problematic as the polls show climate change is far down the list of concerns of voters.

If you accept Ken Caldeira's view as expressed in the Google Technology video you referenced, at least with regard to stratospheric aerosols, governments are unlikely to act due to fear of unintended negative consequences until there is mass starvation in the developed world. Of course for that to happen, the people in the developing world would already have starved to death. Now there's something you can really sink your teeth into. Bon appetit.

Re lance

One should certainly get at least some comic relief out of this blogs denialist troll, Mr. lance. Like the young earth creationists, Mr. lance says that his mind is made up, the evidence is irrelevant (see the link on my previous comment).

A point people here seem to be missing: geonengineering is going on right now in, e.g. China, with increasing mining and dirty burning of coal, adding particulates (and sulfur oxides) which, according to the latest models, will counteract the GW effects of CO2.

Seems to me it would be better to do our geonengineering after some research and planning, rather than pretending that if we aren't doing it on purpose it's not happening.

Yo SLiCk,

You call me names and then refer back to your previous link to a typical pop-press panic piece. Nice third grade level response.

Here is a fact intensive review of the Antarctic ice situation. Read it and you might actually learn something.

Or have you already decided that the sky is falling and anyone that doesn't reflexively agree is a "denialist"?

The above link appears to be dead. Try here.

Re lance

I responded earlier to Mr. Lances' comment but the response was either rejected by Mr. Mooney or go lost while awaiting approval.

Basically Mr. Lance links to an article by Prof. Patrick Michaels of the Un. of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. Prof. Michaels is a well known global warming denier and I would consider an article by him on that subject about as reliable as an article by Duane Gish on evolution or an article by Peter Duesberg on HIV/AIDS.

Er SLiCk,

So lets see. You decide that any scientist that disagrees with your preconceived ideas can be dismissed as a "denier" then you don't have to answer any questions or evidence presented by anyone that disagrees with your ideas.

The "science is settled" so any scientist that disagrees with the "consensus" is a "denialist". Only a "denialist" would challenge the "consensus".

Nice circular reasoning.

Why not try to actually address the points raised by Dr. Micheals? Are the scientific studies he cites, all in main stream peer reviewed journals, authored by "denialists" as well?

The truth is you CAN'T refute his evidence so you call him names instead.

Pathetic.

Re Lance

Mr. Lance is really a rather tiresome individual as he pulls out the Galileo gambit. Peter Duesberg, William Dembski, Brian Josephson, Linus Pauling, J. Allen Hynek, William Shockley, etc. also challenge the scientific consensuses. For instance, Prof. Duesberg, whose scientific pedigree is at least equal to that of Prof. Michaels, has been challenging the scientific consensus that HIV is the proximate cause of AIDS for some 25 years, quite unsuccessfully. His defenders on various blogs (see Mr. cooler on Tara Smiths' blog) are just as rabid in support of his views as Prof. Michaels defenders, are about his views. All the issues that Prof. Michaels brings up have been answered (see the realclimate web site). Prof. Michaels and his pal Prof. Fred Singer are considered laughing stocks by other scientists at UVA, much as Prof. Michael Behe is considered a laughing stock at Lehigh Un.

Re SLC,

More name calling I see. This time you try a little false analogy smear. What's next argumentum ad Hitlerum?

How tedious.